Coach Boyle Says Stop Squatting

Training Bodybuilding
41

[quote]martyh wrote:
Mike Boyle has NOTHING to do with bodybuilding, like many of the coaches who post on T-Nation. [/quote]

Ya, but the info is still relevent to some “bodybuilders”. Some people cant and shouldn’t be squatting, and that doesn’t mean they cant build their legs. Its the same thing as with dips. A lot of people cant do them, but have found suitable alternatives…

If you wanted a site of only bodybuilding coaches/authors, you’d pretty much have no articles to read. Almost anyone that is educated/exerperienced is going to go for a bigger more profitable target audience. Be thankful that your being exposed to the knowledge of those that are much smarter than you.

42

[quote]dankid wrote:

Ya, but the info is still relevent to some “bodybuilders”. Some people cant and shouldn’t be squatting, and that doesn’t mean they cant build their legs. Its the same thing as with dips. A lot of people cant do them, but have found suitable alternatives…[/quote]

That’s all fine and good, but he puts it as if NOBODY should squat. The problem here is that he is looking at this through the prism of HIS athletes. Athletes with not much squating experience.

I’m sorry, but it seems pretty clear that if one of his athletes can do a one leg squat with 115 lbs for 15 reps, and can barely do 230 lbs with 2 legs, that screams poor technique/flexibility. So he ignores that part, only sees the numbers from HIS athletes and says “Oh, single leg squats are IT! No more back squats!”

Do the test with athletes who DO know how to back squat and I don’t think you will see such a difference in the numbers.

43

[quote]cueball wrote:
dankid wrote:

Ya, but the info is still relevent to some “bodybuilders”. Some people cant and shouldn’t be squatting, and that doesn’t mean they cant build their legs. Its the same thing as with dips. A lot of people cant do them, but have found suitable alternatives…

That’s all fine and good, but he puts it as if NOBODY should squat. The problem here is that he is looking at this through the prism of HIS athletes. Athletes with not much squating experience.

I’m sorry, but it seems pretty clear that if one of his athletes can do a one leg squat with 115 lbs for 15 reps, and can barely do 230 lbs with 2 legs, that screams poor technique/flexibility. So he ignores that part, only sees the numbers from HIS athletes and says “Oh, single leg squats are IT! No more back squats!”

Do the test with athletes who DO know how to back squat and I don’t think you will see such a difference in the numbers.

[/quote]

Ya, I agree. Some people should squat and some shouldn’t. I think MB is just trying to get a reaction out of everyone, but his line of thinking is beneficial for certain crowds.

As far as his reasoning with the single leg strength being more than half of the both leg strength: I think his line of thought is flawed. Was he looking at strength on split squats or lunges, or 1-leg squats (aka pistols)? Because I think its perfectly normal to be able to static lunge more than half of your back squat. Your back leg is going to help no matter what anyone says.

And I thought that this has been studies many times before. That exercises requiring more balance/stability were not as conducive for maximum strength training. This is the whole reason why squatting on a stability ball is stupid.

So I dont agree with him so much that uni-lateral exercises are better for strength, but as far as risk, and potential injury with squatting, I still think its something to think about.

44

[quote]JamesBrawn007 wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
No shit lol. Even a weak squat of 315 would be a rediculous lunge.

A bit of advice: learn to spell first before attempting to mock others![/quote]

Here’s some advice: Do something to earn people’s respect on here before you pretend to know anythting. So far you’ve shown yourself to be weak and sensitive.

45

This is a site with many authors on it. There is bound to be differences of opinion. I wouldn’t get to worked up over it. However when I look at many of the coaches on here, the first thing I look at is how they look. In most cases I usually ignore the article by the “coaches” the don’t even look like they lift. I really don’t worry about what Mike Boyle says. If I changed my goals and decided I wanted to look like a 40 year old virgin with the development of Mr. Rogers, I would for sure listen to what he says.

46

[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
JamesBrawn007 wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
No shit lol. Even a weak squat of 315 would be a rediculous lunge.

A bit of advice: learn to spell first before attempting to mock others!

Here’s some advice: Do something to earn people’s respect on here before you pretend to know anythting. So far you’ve shown yourself to be weak and sensitive.[/quote]

so far you shown yourself to be a smartass who thinks he is the shit

47

[quote]cueball wrote:
dankid wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
cueball wrote:
And as far as the lower back being a limiting factor, why not focus on strengthening the weak link instead of sidestepping it?

Bingo.

Yes, but if the reason you are squatting is to run faster or jump higher, you are really only concerned with leg/hip strength. The weak link is only a weak link for the squat, not for what a lot of these people are training for.

I dunno about going “heavy” on single leg stuff being more risky. Sure, you probably wont be grinding out a 1RM or 3RM on pistols, but then again this isnt the only way to get strong or big.

I think it all comes down to matching your goals with what you are doing in the gym and finding a compromise between risk and reward.

Im sure a lot strength coaches dont have at risk athletes doing barbell bench, but many of these athletes will still get strong and big with good alternatives.

I dont think this will be the end of squatting at all, but maybe at least people will realize that it isn’t an essential lift so much, and that there are alternatives.

**Also, I wonder if MB has most of his athletes do deadlifts. Anybody know?

Well, he actually addresses the “T-Nation crowd” when saying don’t do back squats. If you want to argue that single leg exercises are better for athletes, well go ahead. I don’t even have an issue with the lower risk of injury angle.

I DO have a problem with him saying that squats “are not a lower body exercise, they are a low back exercise.” Bull shit. [/quote]

I squatted on Friday (5/3/1). For a “lower back exercise” it sure made my quads sore.

48

[quote]jasmincar wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
JamesBrawn007 wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
No shit lol. Even a weak squat of 315 would be a rediculous lunge.

A bit of advice: learn to spell first before attempting to mock others!

Here’s some advice: Do something to earn people’s respect on here before you pretend to know anythting. So far you’ve shown yourself to be weak and sensitive.

so far you shown yourself to be a smartass who thinks he is the shit[/quote]

Well I am a smartass by nature… But hey, I have a log, with videos if anyone is doubting what I’ve done. Hell, I’m friends on FB with a bunch of guys from here. if you don’t like me, tough shit.

49

In my not so deep experience, squats are nearly useless for the back. Sure they will strain and ache the back but not build it by any means. I believe people like Fred Hatfield would agree. OK, they are probably better than nothing but they don’t take the back through any appreciable range of motion.

The front squat seems good in that it does not cause that excess needless strain that keeps one from hitting the lower body that well that is associated with the back squat a little.

How many people are tapping into their true potential to squat big numbers by training hard their abs, lower back (back extension/GHM. According to Dr. Squat it’s everything you need to do for the erectors), doing whatever it takes to build glutes (conventional squat is not necessarily it) and blasting their hamstrings while being ever mindful of how it will all translate to a firmer squat?

50

[quote]Alffi wrote:
In my not so deep experience, squats are nearly useless for the back. Sure they will strain and ache the back but not build it by any means. I believe people like Fred Hatfield would agree. OK, they are probably better than nothing but they don’t take the back through any appreciable range of motion.

The front squat seems good in that it does not cause that excess needless strain that keeps one from hitting the lower body that well that is associated with the back squat a little.

How many people are tapping into their true potential to squat big numbers by training hard their abs, lower back (back extension/GHM. According to Dr. Squat it’s everything you need to do for the erectors), doing whatever it takes to build glutes (conventional squat is not necessarily it) and blasting their hamstrings while being ever mindful of how it will all translate to a firmer squat?

[/quote]

But who does squats to primarily train their back? Once you get up there in weight, it is true that one’s back is probably the weak link in the exercise. But this is not a reason to stop squatting. As others have said, you should then work on bringing up your back strength with accessory work.

51

[quote]JamesBrawn007 wrote:
ApplCobbler wrote:
I’ve thrown my back out squatting twice in the last three years. Due to factors like my lack of flexibility(which I’ve been working on of late to correct imbalances) and the fact that I have a long torso and stubby femur, which makes me unable to balance the weight properly over my center of movement (from the heel up to the shoulder blade), I’ve switched almost completely over to Single Leg Split Squats. He is right about the lower back being an inhibitor, and there’s been evidence shown on many articles on T-Nation by the authors that single leg training is really beneficial.

I’ve gotten size and strength gains in each plain of motion involved with my legs, increased my vertical by an inch, and have gotten notably more explosive in my running. I can feel the work I’m doing with my quads and glutes much better than when I do a traditional back squat, and there’s much less stress on my lower back. I don’t care about my squat numbers being over 400, I’d rather just have appreciable size and a good amount of power. And I’d also rather keep my back than sacrifice it at the tender age of 22 for some ‘holy grail of lifting’

x2

The squat was my favourite exercise until my lower back had other ideas. I am getting back into it but for the past three months I ditched it and have gone with sets of heavy lunges. I have made continual progress and can now lunge the load I squatted with at my peak. [/quote]

Right on! Your squats must instantly be at a new PR, even if you have to get back in the groove.

52

[quote]martyh wrote:
Mike Boyle has NOTHING to do with bodybuilding, like many of the coaches who post on T-Nation. Some of the info they give is extremely valuable for athletes, I’ve used some of it for my clients who are football players as well as regular joe’s. But I can’t fucking stand some of the shit that gets tossed around by these guys.

This is no longer a bodybuilding site, hasn’t been for a long time. I would love to see CT push more articles and some other legit coaches and bodybuilders, but it ain’t gonna happen. Sorry for the rant. I’m just excited for the ironman tommorow.[/quote]

You’ve got it precisely backwards.

This place USED to have nothing to do with bodybuilding. It was all strength, all the time.

Smith machines were coat racks, isolation exercises were forbidden, and everybody had to be doing the big three or their routine sucked. That’s a very accurate description of how this place was a few years back.

T-Nation has started catering to bodybuilders in a major way over the past year or so.

Boyle certainly isn’t a bodybuilding coach but that’s neither here nor there. The site overall has moved in a very noticeable pro-bodybuilding direction.

I’m guessing the reason for your misunderstanding is that you’re one of those “power builder” guys who thinks that the the best way to get strong is also the best way to get big. Well, hate to break it to you, but that’s wrong.